Sample_Eval_Criteria_and_Rating_Plan.docx
DOCX document 21 KB Posted
- Attached to
- TRANSPORTATION-ELDERLY SERVICES
- Solicitation number
- 2026-RFP-CNH-317
- Issued by
- New Haven County, Connecticut
About this file
This document is a sample evaluation criteria and rating plan template provided by the City of New Haven, Connecticut, Department of Elderly Services for use in evaluating proposals for daily transportation services for senior citizens. The RFP seeks proposals to transport ambulatory and special needs seniors to and from three senior centers (Atwater, Dixwell/Newhallville, and East Shore) and to provide citywide special trips throughout the year. The contractor must operate three buses daily with morning drop-off no later than 9:30 a.m. and afternoon pickup at 3:00 p.m., accommodate maximum ride duration of 30 minutes one-way, serve 35-50 ambulatory riders and 15 special needs riders daily, and support special trip capacity up to 238 ambulatory and 26 special needs riders. Vehicles must accommodate walkers, wheelchairs, and scooters and meet Connecticut State safety requirements. Questions must be submitted by March 11, 2026, at 5:00 p.m., with proposals due electronically by March 24, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. The initial contract term is one year with two optional one-year renewal periods subject to the Purchasing Agent's approval.
The evaluation will use three primary criteria: pass/fail compliance and safety assessment, technical and operational capability weighted at 60 percent, and cost proposal weighted at 40 percent using a "Reward Low Cost" methodology. The rating plan provides three sample scoring systems—adjective-based (Outstanding, Good, Adequate, Fair, Poor), color-coded (Blue, Green, Yellow, Red), or numerical (10, 8, 5, 2, 0)—with descriptive statements to guide reviewer consistency. Pricing must include transparent daily per-bus rates and itemized special trip pricing covering all costs including labor, permits, licenses, equipment, fuel, tolls, and parking. The contract incorporates American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding with all expenditures required between March 3, 2021, and December 31, 2026, and indirect costs capped at 10 percent of the total awarded amount. Contractors must carry general liability insurance ($1 million per occurrence/$2 million aggregate), auto liability ($5 million combined single limit), and excess/umbrella liability ($20 million limits), with the City named as additional insured. The City retains the unilateral right to terminate the agreement for any reason upon twenty-one days' written notice and reserves the right to reject all proposals or cancel the project at any time.
View the file
Other files
Show all 12
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
SAMPLE EVALUATION CRITERIA AND RATING SCALE
****[This Attachment is included to serve only as a SAMPLE and meant to represent the minimum required information. This Attachment may be modified as necessary to accommodate major/minor strengths/weaknesses, etc.]****
Evaluation Criteria
Each Review member will review independently their assigned Responses using the Individual Rating Sheet and identify individual strengths and weaknesses based on the evaluation criteria (from the Evaluation and Rating Plan) outlined below:
Criterion 1- Scientific and Technological Merit – XX%
· Degree to which proposed technology or methodology meets the stated objectives of the funding opportunity announcement.
· Degree to which the proposed work identifies and/or makes progress on new/existing concepts.
· Degree to which the proposed work is based on sound scientific and engineering principles.
· Likelihood of developing a new successful technology.
· Anticipated benefits of the proposed work in comparison to current commercial and emerging technologies.
Criterion 2 – Technical Approach – XX%
· Adequacy and feasibility of the Applicant’s approach to achieving the funding opportunity announcement’s stated objectives.
· Appropriateness, rationale, and completeness of the proposed Statement of Project Objectives.
· Extent of prior use, research, development or Response of the proposed technology and appropriateness of how the prior work relates to the proposed Response of the technology.
· Adequacy of the proposed project schedule, staffing plan, and proposed travel.
· Degree to which the Applicant has identified high-risk challenges and presented reasonable mitigation strategies.
· Adequacy of technology transfer plan, commercialization and utilization of proposed technology.
Criterion 3 – Technical and Management Capabilities – XX%
· Demonstrated capability and experience of the Applicant and its participating organizations in managing projects that meet project objectives, within budget and on schedule.
· Clarity, completeness, and appropriateness of the Project Management Plan in establishing a credible project base and how the activitywill be implemented and managed.
· Clarity, logic and effectiveness of project organization, including subawards, to successfully complete the project.
· Credentials, capabilities, and experience of key personnel.
· Adequacy and availability of proposed personnel, facilities, and equipment to perform project tasks.
Each Reviewer member will be required to provide written strengths and weaknesses with regard to the evaluation criteria. The strengths and weaknesses will serve as a basis to assigning a numerical score to the Responses.
A strength is an aspect of a Response that, when compared to the stated evaluation criterion, appears to positively affect the probability of successful mission accomplishment of the potential financial assistance agreement.
A weakness is an aspect of a Response that, when compared to the stated evaluation criterion, appears to negatively affect the probability of successful mission accomplishment of the potential financial assistance agreement.
After completing individual reviews, the Review Leader should schedule a consensus review meeting and coordinate the development of the Consensus Strengths and Weaknesses and Consensus Scores.
Rating Scale Sample A:
Only the following adjectives may be assigned: Outstanding, Good, Adequate, Fair and Poor. The scoring of each criterion must be based on the strengths and weaknesses of the Response. To assist in assigning an appropriate score, the following can be used as a guideline:
Rating Descriptive Statement
| Outstanding | Applicant fully addresses all aspects of the criterion, convincingly demonstrates that it will meet the City’s performance requirements, and demonstrates no weaknesses |
| Good | Applicant fully addresses all aspects of the criterion, convincingly demonstrates a likelihood of meeting the City’s requirements, and demonstrates only a few minor weaknesses. |
| Adequate | Applicant addresses all aspects of the criterion and demonstrates the ability to meet the City’s performance requirements. The Response may contain significant weaknesses and/or a number of minor weaknesses. |
Poor Applicant does not address all aspects of the criterion nor is evidence presented indicating the likelihood of successfully meeting the City’s requirements. Significant weaknesses are demonstrated and clearly outweigh any strengths presented.
Unacceptable Applicant does not address all aspects of the criterion and the information presented indicates a strong likelihood of failure to meet the City’s requirements.
Sample B:
Only the following color rating values may be assigned: Blue, Green, Yellow, and Red. The scoring of each criterion must be based on the strengths and weaknesses of the Response. To assist in assigning an appropriate score, the following can be used as a guideline:
Rating Descriptive Statement
Blue Exceptional Response – Applicant fully addresses all aspects of the criterion, convincingly demonstrates that it will meet the City’s performance requirements, and demonstrates no weaknesses
Green Acceptable Response - Applicant addresses all aspects of the criterion and demonstrates the ability to meet the City’s performance requirements. The Response may contain significant weaknesses and/or a number of minor weaknesses.
Yellow Marginal Response - Applicant does not address all aspects of the criterion nor is evidence presented indicating the likelihood of successfully meeting the City’s requirements. Significant weaknesses are demonstrated and clearly outweigh any strengths presented
Red Unacceptable Response - Applicant does not address all aspects of the criterion and the information presented indicates a strong likelihood of failure to meet the City’s requirements.
Sample C:
Only the following numerical rating values may be assigned: 10, 8, 5, 2, and 0. The scoring of each criterion must be based on the strengths and weaknesses of the Response. To assist in assigning an appropriate score, the following can be used as a guideline:
| Rating | Descriptive Statement |
| 10 | Applicant fully addresses all aspects of the criterion, convincingly demonstrates that it will meet the City’s performance requirements, and demonstrates no weaknesses. |
| 8 | Applicant fully addresses all aspects of the criterion, convincingly demonstrates a likelihood of meeting the City’s requirements, and demonstrates only a few minor weaknesses. |
5 Applicant addresses all aspects of the criterion and demonstrates the ability to meet the City’s performance requirements. The Response may contain significant weaknesses and/or a number of minor weaknesses.
2 Applicant does not address all aspects of the criterion nor is evidence presented indicating the likelihood of successfully meeting the City’s requirements. Significant weaknesses are demonstrated and clearly outweigh any strengths presented.
0 Applicant does not address all aspects of the criterion and the information presented indicates a strong likelihood of failure to meet the City’s requirements.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .